What is the Party of No Ideas (the Dims) proposing we should cut $$$

[Mr. Shaman]

The liberal Democratics love to pretend that the GOP is the Party of No.

You BONER-fans are too comical!!!!!

​

We can argue about the wisdom of WHICH programs, etc., would be cut.

....And, they WILL!!!! (If the Pubies can manage to FIND The House....over the next-couple-years....for a Change).

Whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiining a lil' early, aren't you??

 

[uscitizen]

What is the Party of No Ideas (the Dims) proposing we should cut $$$

The military....Period.

Granted that there are gobs of waste in procurement, unworkable weapons systems and massive over-deployment of troops, they can't ever seem to be pinned down on the nitty-gritty details of just what they'd cut.

But don't you dare eliminate the CPB or NEA.

Exactly.....the marxists would go ballistic if you interfered with their propaganda machines....union control, purposeful dumbing down, social engineering...

We could eliminate ed and save a HUGE chunk....like 150 Billion in one fell swoop...states pay for teachers anyhow...and federal loans just keep increasing school costs...

Federal education spending is a monumental waste.....vast spending....minimal results...

Yep just do away with all taxpayer funding for education. Make parents responsible for ensuring their children are educated.

 

[Liability]

It looks like we can add the always trite Sheman to the list of libs too totally pathetic to respond in any meaningful way.

Of course, even most libs are embarrassed by Sheman.

It's ok. Most conservatives recognize that the She-male is not a valid representation of modern American liberalism or of most other liberals.

 

[shintao]

Pssst. Dims. We have an actual problem. Ignoring it will not make it "go away." Spending more is the problem, not a solution. We have to attend to the DEBT problem and we cannot do that while spending more than we take in at such a frenetic pace. And, sad to tell you, we also cannot TAX our way out of this problem. Taxation has consequences -- and an ebbing tide sinks all boats....

Ergo, what we'd like from you folks is a demonstration of actual responsibility.

Geeze, we should have sent you to DC in a wooden crate, back when Bush was spending money we didn't have, and Cheney was telling us deficits don't matter.

Gut the military & bring all the troops home. Cut off foreign aid & the Israel umbilical cord. Cut off corporate aid, and other corporate subsidies & bonuses & all regulations & taxation. Kick the illegals out or put them on chain gangs cleaning up the shit on the ground in America.

Cut all government employees in DC's wages by 50% until they balance the budget.

Get rid of the ATF and all regulations. Legalize drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and guns and put a consumer tax of 20% on them.

Legalize prostitution brothels & medical clinics and collect a 20% usery tax.

 

[jgarden]

The liberal Democratics love to pretend that the GOP is the Party of No.

But the GOP has come up with a proposal to cut 2.5 TRILLION dollars of spending. If we accept the rough figure that we are slightly over 14 TRILLION dollars in debt, then 2.5 TRILLION in cuts is pretty substantial (even spread out over 10 years). http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Spending_Reduction_Act--TWOPAGER.pdf.....

Since 1950, Republican Presidents Responsible for 84% of National Debt
May 31, 2010

..... Between FYs 1950 and 2009 inclusive, 84% of our cumulative national debt (roughly $9.2 trillion out of $11 trillion of debt) has been created under Republican Presidents. Reagan / Bush I / Bush II between them are responsible for nearly 80% ($8.75 trillion)!

Republican Presidents have:
- more than doubled the debt (Bush II 127%)
- tripled the debt (Nixon/Ford 194%)
- quintupled the debt (Reagan/Bush I 479%).

..... On average, a Democratic President increases the debt $73.4 billion every year, while a Republican President increases the debt $255.7 billion, roughly 3.5 times as much .....

http://accessnewsservice.blogspot.com/2010/05/fwd-since-1950-republican-presidents.html

Since 1950, the Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly that they are the least fiscally responsible of the 2 parties.

The GOP and its supporters talk a good line BUT once in power its painfully obvious that they don't deliver on their promises - except when it comes to cutting taxes for the wealthy!

 

[Moon]

I'll take your $2.5 trillion in cuts and raise you another $2.5 trillion by getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW

To top it off.......I'll knock another $2.5 trillion off the debt by repealing all the Bush Tax cuts and his unfunded prescription plan

Well, that's a surprise. Imagine a liberal suggesting the unilateral withdrawal from Iraq. Imagine a liberal suggesting a flat out withdrawal from Afghanistan.

And in other shocking developments, a liberal thinks that increasing taxes will help the debt problem.

I say we can attack the debt by scraping Obamacare in its entirety and doing it immediately.

The key is to cut spending and these irrational new entitlement programs.

The cure to our debt problem is NOT to tax us any more. The cure is to be found by living within our means.

This liberal says before we start cutting programs that help AMERICANS lets end foreign entanglements that help nations that hate us

Debt is the result of too much money out and not enough money in. The Bush tax cuts have already added $2.5 trillion to our debt. Time to tighten our belts and stop the bleeding
Once our debt has been paid off, the rich can have back their tax cuts....I promise

Funny that you don't think tax cuts help AMERICANS.

 

[shintao]

Well, that's a surprise. Imagine a liberal suggesting the unilateral withdrawal from Iraq. Imagine a liberal suggesting a flat out withdrawal from Afghanistan.

And in other shocking developments, a liberal thinks that increasing taxes will help the debt problem.

I say we can attack the debt by scraping Obamacare in its entirety and doing it immediately.

The key is to cut spending and these irrational new entitlement programs.

The cure to our debt problem is NOT to tax us any more. The cure is to be found by living within our means.

This liberal says before we start cutting programs that help AMERICANS lets end foreign entanglements that help nations that hate us

Debt is the result of too much money out and not enough money in. The Bush tax cuts have already added $2.5 trillion to our debt. Time to tighten our belts and stop the bleeding
Once our debt has been paid off, the rich can have back their tax cuts....I promise

Funny that you don't think tax cuts help AMERICANS.

It is a principle. Ask not what you can do for yourself. Remember the other half of that?

 

[jgarden]

..... Funny that you don't think tax cuts help AMERICANS.

Does "Moon" support federal tax cuts paid for by borrowed money - which is exactly what happens when the government cuts taxes while running a deficit!

 

[rightwinger]

Well, that's a surprise. Imagine a liberal suggesting the unilateral withdrawal from Iraq. Imagine a liberal suggesting a flat out withdrawal from Afghanistan.

And in other shocking developments, a liberal thinks that increasing taxes will help the debt problem.

I say we can attack the debt by scraping Obamacare in its entirety and doing it immediately.

The key is to cut spending and these irrational new entitlement programs.

The cure to our debt problem is NOT to tax us any more. The cure is to be found by living within our means.

This liberal says before we start cutting programs that help AMERICANS lets end foreign entanglements that help nations that hate us

Debt is the result of too much money out and not enough money in. The Bush tax cuts have already added $2.5 trillion to our debt. Time to tighten our belts and stop the bleeding
Once our debt has been paid off, the rich can have back their tax cuts....I promise

Funny that you don't think tax cuts help AMERICANS.

Some more than others

 

[Liability]

The liberal Democratics love to pretend that the GOP is the Party of No.

But the GOP has come up with a proposal to cut 2.5 TRILLION dollars of spending. If we accept the rough figure that we are slightly over 14 TRILLION dollars in debt, then 2.5 TRILLION in cuts is pretty substantial (even spread out over 10 years). http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Spending_Reduction_Act--TWOPAGER.pdf.....

Since 1950, Republican Presidents Responsible for 84% of National Debt
May 31, 2010

..... Between FYs 1950 and 2009 inclusive, 84% of our cumulative national debt (roughly $9.2 trillion out of $11 trillion of debt) has been created under Republican Presidents. Reagan / Bush I / Bush II between them are responsible for nearly 80% ($8.75 trillion)!

Republican Presidents have:
- more than doubled the debt (Bush II 127%)
- tripled the debt (Nixon/Ford 194%)
- quintupled the debt (Reagan/Bush I 479%).

..... On average, a Democratic President increases the debt $73.4 billion every year, while a Republican President increases the debt $255.7 billion, roughly 3.5 times as much .....

Access News Service: Fwd: Since 1950, Republican Presidents Responsible for 84% of National Debt ANS

Since 1950, the Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly that they are the least fiscally responsible of the 2 parties.

The GOP and its supporters talk a good line BUT once in power its painfully obvious that they don't deliver on their promises - except when it comes to cutting taxes for the wealthy!

In light of the 5 trillion added by the Obama Administration so far, that's a silly claim and a presentation of somewhat misleading "statistics."

But it's interesting to see you liberals getting on board with the notion that we must DRASTICALLY cut such reckless spending. The GOP has come around (we hope). Maybe you libs can join them?

 

[rightwinger]

Defense can still be cut ...but not an arbitrary 10-15% across the board cut

We spend more on our military than the next 20 countries combined. But our military is as big as we have defined we need. To change the military, we need to redefine its mission. Do we need to be the protectors of the globe? Do we need 1500 nuclear warheads when they haven't been used in 65 years? Should the EU pick up more of the global burden?

Lets look at what we really need our military to do and cut there

 

[Liability]

Defense can still be cut ...but not an arbitrary 10-15% across the board cut

We spend more on our military than the next 20 countries combined. But our military is as big as we have defined we need. To change the military, we need to redefine its mission. Do we need to be the protectors of the globe? Do we need 1500 nuclear warheads when they haven't been used in 65 years? Should the EU pick up more of the global burden?

Lets look at what we really need our military to do and cut there

You might be surprised to learn that many conservatives (but I'll speak just for myself at this juncture) might agree with that thinking. I can tell you for a fact, I'm in agreement.

The "debates" over what our "missions" are and ought to be may not lead to harmony. I suspect that many people (my bet is that it will be mostly liberals) would be ALL FOR cutting the military's role all over the world. But, I also suspect that many conservatives will agree in principle.

For example, I have seen one conservative (Libertarian, actually) friend regularly question why we need to still have troops in Germany and in Japan.

I have seen conservatives agree -- again in broad strokes -- with liberals on the proposition that the proper role of the United States of America in the world does NOT include taking on the task of being "the World's Policeman."

I also agree that any discussion of "how much" we should be spending on our military is VERY MUCH determined (logically) by HOW we define the role of our military in terms of our needs.

All of that said, I suspect that we CAN end up cutting the fat (or at least a good portion of it) from our military budget. In the process, it SEEMS to be possible to actually cut the military appropriations part of the federal budget (and the role it plays in our massive deficit) without endangering our security.

 

[Liability]

prove we would disagree?

I would personally hire an independent account, Background check to make sure that person has no ties to any "private companies" you know, bribes, kickbacks, lobbyists, and then i would just go over the numbers.

why make things complicated when the honest, easy thing to do, is to keep it simple.

I have no idea what that first sentence means.

I would love to see an army of accountants assess all that stuff. I would be thrilled to assist in the reviews, even without an accounting background.

A GREAT deal of the debate would STILL (unavoidably) be political in nature. But I am not afraid of compromise. A compromise to achieve useful results is not a moral defect. It is a compromise of PRINCIPLES that has to be avoided. Still and all, some compromise is healthy.

My expectation is that it would be very quickly concluded that there is nothing simple in ANY part of it. And even so, I see no reason not to get started ASAP.

A rough start, a terrible drive and jarring bumps along the way is still more progress than we've had in this mess in many years. The time has long since come to get started and deal with the lumps, bumps and bruises as necessary.

you said we would disagree on how this should happen. I asked you to prove it.

You can comprise your princples, but you dont have to fully. Its all give and take.

Thats a problem. You saying its not simple you make it not simple. Sure some areas might be complex. Like Medicare and Military, but thats because they are so large.
Other areas would not be. So a case by case makes it simple and not so daunting.

none of this will actually happen. Neither party is interested in actually cutting budgets. Look at the recent GOP offers. They mark out military, medicare and one other area that can have no cuts at all.

I don't understand why you feel it necessary to argue over whether the debates would lead to disagreement. It seems unavoidable to me. People approach these issues from VERY different vantage points. While I, for example, am content to suggest that the Federal Government has no proper Constitutional role in "education," I have heard many folks angrily insist that it not only DOES but that it SHOULD. When folks commence a debate on that topic, therefore, from such very different starting points, there isn't truly much doubt that the debate will be contentious.

No. I do not expect simplicity. I do not believe that we need to concern ourselves with the idea that it is not going to be simple, either.

I don't think I have undertaken anything that requires that I now "prove" to you or to anybody that it is likely to be a difficult debate. (Actually a whole series of difficult, complex, sometimes wrenching debates.) If we ever start to seriously undertake the task, we will find out soon enough if I'm right or if you're right. Maybe it will all proceed swimmingly. I doubt it, though. If we ever get started, we'll see. HELL, for that matter, I HOPE you're right about how simple it might be.

But whether it turns out to be simple or enormously difficult, the point is that we need to get going on this.

 

[Oddball]

The DOE who has no real role in education, and is mostly left up to states and local towns....

QF (inadvertent) T!

Well, I guess that we won't miss it too much then.

 

[Liability]

I don't understand why you feel it necessary to argue over whether the debates would lead to disagreement. It seems unavoidable to me. People approach these issues from VERY different vantage points. While I, for example, am content to suggest that the Federal Government has no proper Constitutional role in "education," I have heard many folks angrily insist that it not only DOES but that it SHOULD. When folks commence a debate on that topic, therefore, from such very different starting points, there isn't truly much doubt that the debate will be contentious.

No. I do not expect simplicity. I do not believe that we need to concern ourselves with the idea that it is not going to be simple, either.

I don't think I have undertaken anything that requires that I now "prove" to you or to anybody that it is likely to be a difficult debate. (Actually a whole series of difficult, complex, sometimes wrenching debates.) If we ever start to seriously undertake the task, we will find out soon enough if I'm right or if you're right. Maybe it will all proceed swimmingly. I doubt it, though. If we ever get started, we'll see. HELL, for that matter, I HOPE you're right about how simple it might be.

But whether it turns out to be simple or enormously difficult, the point is that we need to get going on this.

ah education, Something Jefferson thought should be free for all people. The doe which was basically founded in the late 1800's. The DOE who has no real role in education, and is mostly left up to states and local towns. Where maybe 10% of a local budget comes from the feds, and thats mostly emergency cash..

The DOE which go most of its funding jump under bush racks up about 100 billion now annually. With that all said, hate to break it to you, our education ranking SUCKS.

I dont disagree that it will lead to disagreement. My point was prove we would disagree on how to go about cutting funding....

Sure we need to get going on this,but like i said the GOP is doing it wrong, and if they wanted real support they would put everything on the chopping block. Not being picky and choosy.

So, we don't agree on the utility of the DoE. We don't agree that it has a valid Constitutional basis. We don't agree that it can be cut or that it even should be cut.

The question of where we rank internationally in terms of education is hardly the point, either.

So, on balance, with even that topic, there is disagreement and on many matters I say the disagreement is likely to get considerably more fractious.

If we cannot even agree on some very basic premises, what I said was that it is likely that we will not be able to easily agree on HOW to cut spending.

You are free to believe otherwise. Honestly, I don't much care on that unimportant point whether you're right in your prediction (which would be terrific) or I'm right in my prediction (which would be far from terrific).

You say "prove it" and I say, "why bother?" It doesn't matter. It's just a prediction that it will prove to be difficult. I still hope you're right and that my prediction is wrong. So what difference does it make that I prove or don't prove a prediction? It's irrelevant. What's important is getting this thing under way.

 

[Oddball]

The DOE who has no real role in education, and is mostly left up to states and local towns....

QF (inadvertent) T!

Well, I guess that we won't miss it too much then.

no idea...seems we have liked it for the past 100 years

The DOE is 100 years old?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Democrats will thwart the Republicans at every turn when it comes to real cuts. They'll just continue to feed their Welfare/Entitlement sheep the propaganda shit they need to eat. It's going to be incredibly difficult for the Republicans to make any real cuts. But hey,at least they're trying. And that's what they were sent there to do. Just don't be Democrat-Light anymore and the People will continue to support them in their efforts. The Republicans just need to keep on keepin on. The People will respect them for this.

 

[snjmom]

Raise full retirement to 70. Remove the FICA caps. Eliminate fee-for-service and incentivize best practice for gov health recipients. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and focus 10% of that budget on new energy sources. Tax short-selling profits at 50%. Eliminate farm subsidies on anything bigger than 100 acres. Require service for college grants. Reduce Federal highway aid. Eliminate the mortgage deduction. Freeze Medicare payments. Eliminate the Bush cuts.


Those would be my starters.

 

[rightwinger]

The Democrats will thwart the Republicans at every turn when it comes to real cuts. They'll just continue to feed their Welfare/Entitlement sheep the propaganda shit they need to eat. It's going to be incredibly difficult for the Republicans to make any real cuts. But hey,at least they're trying. And that's what they were sent there to do. Just don't be Democrat-Light anymore and the People will continue to support them in their efforts. The Republicans just need to keep on keepin on. The People will respect them for this.

When have the Republicans ever made "real cuts"??

They have no problem cutting taxes...but when it comes time to cut spending to make up for those tax cuts, they are nowhere to be found

Republicans are as big a spender as the Democrats. They just spend on different things

 

[Liability]

So, we don't agree on the utility of the DoE. We don't agree that it has a valid Constitutional basis. We don't agree that it can be cut or that it even should be cut.

The question of where we rank internationally in terms of education is hardly the point, either.

So, on balance, with even that topic, there is disagreement and on many matters I say the disagreement is likely to get considerably more fractious.

If we cannot even agree on some very basic premises, what I said was that it is likely that we will not be able to easily agree on HOW to cut spending.

You are free to believe otherwise. Honestly, I don't much care on that unimportant point whether you're right in your prediction (which would be terrific) or I'm right in my prediction (which would be far from terrific).

You say "prove it" and I say, "why bother?" It doesn't matter. It's just a prediction that it will prove to be difficult. I still hope you're right and that my prediction is wrong. So what difference does it make that I prove or don't prove a prediction? It's irrelevant. What's important is getting this thing under way.
__

i guess not, i gave you what i have read about them. I gave you facts about what they do and how long they have been around.
Does that have any baring on if they should be cut? No, I just gave you facts. Do you like to jump without looking? I would have to guess yes from this answer.

Well yes actually are rank does matter. Thats how humans do things. We like to rank things, and here in America we like to be number 1. So yes Lia it does matter, and it matters a lot. If the DOE was proven to be useful and helped us be number one, would you be so quick to cut it? I doubt it. China is ranked number one if not at least very high, and they have a more socialistic DOE.

I mean you can toss out the "constitution" all you like, but to me that comes off as a buzz word. Thats you trying to take a simple term, and put it over a complex issue.

and before you state such, The idea of cutting money should be at least in theory simple. figuring out if such agencies need to be cut, is quite more complex.

Cutting spending is easy. You look at what they do, You look at the overhead, You look at salaries, you look at inventory, and you cut out the fat. Like any PRIVATE business.

why bother? If thats how you want to be, then why make the thread. You started off all gun-ho lets work this out, Soon as someone comes in ( ME ) and disagrees in places and doesn't just march along to your tune...Its why bother. You bother because from the OP it seems like you care You "why bother" because in reality i I am giving you a chance Lia, find some common ground, but if you want we can just go back to name calling. I can find others who are willing to TALK.

No its not important that things get underway. Nothing we do here is going to start anything. You dont have your finger on the go button, We are here to bat around ideas and talk about things. You have zero power( just like i).

See now i feel the fool for wasting my time, being all serious with this shit.

Well, you are reverting to form. Too bad.

I said absolutely nothing that says I wish to (or am ever inclined to) jump without looking.

I am not interested in a specific debate (at this point) on the merits of the DoE nor on any other particular program, Agency, Department, etc. What I have suggested so far (and I thought you were more or less on the same page) is that we need to place all of it under scrutiny.

For example, if you think (like leftwinger has expressed it) that the military budget cannot be deemed a sacred cow, but that instead it should have its budget determined within the context of defining what it is actually expected to accomplish -- and that what it is expected to accomplish comes with some significant issues that need to be debated and ironed out -- then you would probably agree that we need to (A) come to grips with defining the proper role and scope of the U.S. military and THEN (B) look at the overall military budget to determine which programs, etc., fit within that definition.

Once we have a rough framework, we can wander into the thorny weeds on a budgetary line by line basis.

And no, it doesn't matter where we rank in the international arena for "education" when we are not yet debating that budgetary item. And it may not EVER matter if we determine that to the extent a problem exists, it is NOT the role of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (under our Constitutionally agreed upon form of LIMITED GOVERNMENT) to involve itself in that STATE issue. First things first, Plaz.